Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 109349.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. DISCUSSION: This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl

Clinical characteristics of women captured by extending the definition of severe postpartum haemorrhage with 'refractoriness to treatment': a cohort study

Background: The absence of a uniform and clinically relevant definition of severe postpartum haemorrhage hampers comparative studies and optimization of clinical management. The concept of persistent postpartum haemorrhage, based on refractoriness to initial first-line treatment, was proposed as an alternative to common definitions that are either based on estimations of blood loss or transfused units of packed red blood cells (RBC). We compared characteristics and outcomes of women with severe postpartum haemorrhage captured by these three types of definitions. Methods: In this large retrospective cohort study in 61 hospitals in the Netherlands we included 1391 consecutive women with postpartum haemorrhage who received either ≥4 units of RBC or a multicomponent transfusion. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of women with severe postpartum haemorrhage defined as persistent postpartum haemorrhage were compared to definitions based on estimated blood loss or transfused units of RBC within 24 h following birth. Adverse maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality, hysterectomy, arterial embolisation and intensive care unit admission. Results: One thousand two hundred sixty out of 1391 women (90.6%) with postpartum haemorrhage fulfilled the definition of persistent postpartum haemorrhage. The majority, 820/1260 (65.1%), fulfilled this definition within 1 h following birth, compared to 819/1391 (58.7%) applying the definition of ≥1 L blood loss and 37/845 (4.4%) applying the definition of ≥4 units of RBC. The definition persistent postpartum haemorrhage captured 430/471 adverse maternal outcomes (91.3%), compared to 471/471 (100%) for ≥1 L blood loss and 383/471 (81.3%) for ≥4 units of RBC. Persistent postpartum haemorrhage did not capture all adverse outcomes because of missing data on timing of initial, first-line treatment. Conclusion: The definition persistent postpartum haemo

Foley catheter or prostaglandin E2 inserts for induction of labour at term: an open-label randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-P trial) and systematic review of literature

To assess the safety and effectiveness of a transcervical Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E2 inserts for term induction of labour. We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in five hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a singleton term pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, unfavourable cervix, and no prior caesarean section were enrolled. Participants were randomly allocated by a web-based randomization system to induction of labour with a 30 ml Foley catheter or 10mg slow-release vaginal prostaglandin E2 inserts in a 1:1 ratio. Due to the nature of the intervention this study was not blinded. The primary outcome was the caesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time from intervention to birth. Additionally, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of similar studies. We analyzed 226 women: 107 received a Foley catheter and 119 inserts. Caesarean section rates were comparable (20% versus 22%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.54-1.50). Secondary outcomes showed no differences. We observed no serious maternal or neonatal morbidity. Meta-analysis showed comparable caesarean section rates, but significantly fewer cases of hyperstimulation during the ripening phase when a Foley catheter was used. We found, in this relatively small study, no differences in effectiveness and safety of induction of labour with a Foley catheter and 10mg slow release vaginal prostaglandin E2 inserts. Meta-analysis confirmed a comparable caesarean section rate, and showed fewer cases of hyperstimulation when a Foley catheter was use

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour : randomised multicentre equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551

Pronation in der Sportschuhforschung

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour:randomised multicentre equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551

Balloon catheter for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean and an unfavorable cervix

Introduction When women with a previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix have an indication for delivery, the choice is to induce labor or to perform a cesarean section. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of a balloon catheter as a method of induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix compared with an elective repeat cesarean section. Material and methods We performed a prospective cohort study in 51 hospitals in the Netherlands on term women with one previous cesarean section, a live singleton fetus in cephalic position, an unfavorable cervix and an indication for delivery. We recorded obstetric, maternal and neonatal characteristics. We compared the outcome of women who were induced with a balloon catheter with the outcome of women who delivered by elective repeat cesarean section. Main outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity. Mode of delivery was a secondary outcome for women who were induced. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders. Results Analysis was performed on 993 women who were induced and 321 women who had a repeat cesarean section (August 2011 until September 2012). Among the women who were induced, 560 (56.4%) delivered vaginally and 11 (1.1%) sustained a uterine rupture. Composite adverse maternal outcome (uterine rupture, severe postpartum hemorrhage or postpartum infection) occurred in 73 (7.4%) in the balloon and 14 (4.5%) women in the repeat cesarean section group (aOR 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-2.96). Composite adverse neonatal outcome (Apgar score p